You would think that achieving the rank of Lt. Gen. would indicate that someone has courage and a willingness to engage the enemy, but apparently not because “Lt. Gen.” Jerry Boykin has turned tail and run like a scared little girl. “Lt. Gen.” Boykin was supposed to address this conference but backed out because Pastor David Whitney, the Chaplain of the Maryland League of the South, was scheduled to speak based on his role with the Institute on the Constitution. This is particularly pathetic because the $PLC has absurdly labeled the FRC as a hate group because they hold the traditional Christian position on homosexuality. “Gen.” Boykin should be fighting the $PLC and their ilk, not caving to them and backing out like a spineless jellyfish.
Archive for the 'Political Correctness' Category
Posted under Political Correctness
For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.
And don’t apologize when you have nothing to apologize for.
I don’t usually post blatant fund raising appeals, but this was too rich to pass up. Even the Constitution Party is dissing TAC now. Note the third bullet point.
Dear Friend of the Constitution Party:
The more things change the more they stay the same. That’s so very true in the political arena. Here are some recent news items that underscore my point:
• An Associated Press headline: “Britain’s governing Conservatives have hired Jim Messina, President Obama’s former campaign manager, to advise them ahead of the 2015 general election.” The Constitution Party has long said that the elites can cross party and ideological lines at will.
• The neo-con magazine, National Review, reports that, “Senate Republicans and Democrats Agree on Syria: Red Line Has Been Crossed.” The article backs the idea of US intervention in yet another Middle East hotspot—in this case it means siding with “rebels” who have the full, open support of Al-Qadea. The Constitution Party knows you can’t impose “democracy” at the point of a gun.
• Former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman wrote an editorial in The American Conservative (of all places) stating that, “civil unions” and marriage “equality” were a “conservative cause” and should be supported in the name of “civil equality.” Even the GOP has joined the “gay rights” movement—the Constitution Party supports the traditional concept of marriage as understood by the Founding Founders.
George Wallace used to say, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Today, the distinction between “Conservative” and “Liberal” will get you change for a nickel.
That’s why the Constitution Party is the only party to live up to its name. Our pledge is to support the right to life—from conception to natural death. We believe that US borders must be safe, that the security of American workers be the highest priority in foreign trade policies, and that Washington power brokers must not risk national sovereignty via entangling alliances.
I’m reminding you of what the Constitution Party stands for, what we fight for every day, because … it’s August.
You see, the hot summer months mean supporters are on family vacations. Perhaps home projects take their attention away from politics. In any case, funding for ongoing Constitution party activities is down. I have no other way to say that the Constitution party needs your help.
Please consider a generous donation of $50 or even $25—and please let me hear from you right away.
It’s urgent that we build a new website, print literature, and plan for ballot access drives. That work cannot wait until the slow summer months go by. Please invest what you can, $20 or $200, so we may stay in the fight.
If you believe that our fellow citizens need to hear the patriotic alternative to the establishment duopoly, then send a gift today. A $100 donation will go a long way this month. If we could count on active patriots to pitch in $25 it will help so much. Your support in August, in the next few days, will make a difference.
“Conservative” and “Liberal” labels are a fraud. Only “Constitutionalists” offer America real solutions … help us make that known.
Posted under Political Correctness
Patrick Sharp, a freshman at Georgia State University in Atlanta, is forming an informal White Student Union. Interestingly, he says he was inspired by Matthew Heimbach of Towson University White Student Union fame. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story:
Sharp said he was inspired to start the union after viewing videos and interviews with Matthew Heimbach, who started a White Student Union at Towson University in Maryland.
The ADL has already issued a condemnation.
Grab your barf-bag before reading this puff piece on Jess George, the white jefa of Charlotte’s Latin American Coalition:
She’s not Latino, an immigrant, or even a minority. She’s not fluent in Spanish, either. …
Since taking over the Latin American Coalition four years ago, she has steadily increased its visibility with a series of rallies, marches and publicity stunts. … It’s an unusual approach that has drawn national attention. The country’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization, the National Council of La Raza, called the coalition an “inspiration” for other immigrant advocates.
I can remember when “civil rights” meant favoring voting rights for blacks who were US citizens. But we’ve evolved way past that. These days, “civil rights” means “the right of foreigners to invade and colonize another country.” I guess that’s progress.
But there are sometimes speed bumps on the road to progress. George’s ascent to the position of the jefa of the Latin American Coalition was resented by Latinos who couldn’t figure out why this gringa was telling them what to do:
“I’ve had other Latino leaders in Charlotte tell me: ‘Jess, it’s nice that you are doing this for the community. But when is a real leader going to show up?’?” says George.
“At first, it was really hard to hear. I’m the kind of person who likes to be told how I can do things better. But when you point to me and say, ‘You’re white,’ I can’t change that.”
Former coalition board chairwoman Olma Echeverri admits that there was backlash when George was named executive director. Prior to that, George spent five years as an associate director at the coalition.
“I supported her taking over, but I was approached by people asking why I didn’t find another candidate who was Latino,” said Echeverri, now chairwoman of the Hispanic-American Democrats of North Carolina.
Nevertheless, despite such difficulties, this New York transplant continues to stand up “for a class of people she feels is being bullied by the system.”
How noble. And how courageous. After all, other than the federal government, the media, academia, and big business, NO ONE is helping illegal aliens in this country.
… for being, you guessed it, an extremist hate group.
It would be nice if the PC Rightthink Enforcers would actually present evidence of hate when they make casual allegations that some entity is a “hate group.”
Yet [SPLC hack Mark] Potok argues that even aging, somewhat addled racists can present a danger. “We’re no longer going to be a country dominated by Protestant white people. At this point it’s too late. One of my own worries is that people like this will be driven to the very extreme when they realize once and for all that there’s no way they can win.”
Notice again the Cultural Marxist double standard. Potok gets to celebrate white demographic dissolution, but if the Mencken Club members bemoan the same thing they’re haters. The only hate in evidence in this article is Potok’s hate for white people as he does a happy dance on their demographic grave.
The article also mentions Richard Spencer and Alternative Right.
Here is Alternative Right’s take on the article.
Patroon stated below that Chronicles Magazine had failed to come to the defense of Jack Hunter. As far as I know, up to that point he was correct, but now they have in this concise but excellent post by Eugene Girin.
The mainstream howled in outrage over Hunter’s 2004 column “John Wilkes Booth Was Right”. Now, raising a toast to the assassin of an American president, is of course going too far. However, most of the things Jack Hunter wrote in that column are right on and all paleoconservatives would agree with them.
He then goes on to give a few examples of supposedly outrageous things that Jack said that are actually quite defensible and taken for granted on the paleo right. I had in fact bemoaned in a comment at TAC that so few if any were defending what Jack had said other than me. People were either feigning PC outrage (the left, the neocons and the mainstream “right”), defending him on the grounds that he had grown (Daniel McCarthy) or throwing him under the bus for backtracking (Hunter Wallace, Palmetto Patriot, Michael Hill). But given that much of what he said was routine in our circles, I felt someone besides me needed to defended them. Mr. Girin’s post is short, but it does just that very effectively.
Knowing and recognizing the dark role of Abraham Lincoln in American history is one of the main aspects of the paleoconservative persuasion. Most paleos have at one point or another been subject to the vituperative attacks by the Left and the mainstream “Right” for expressing their views on “Honest Abe”. I, for example, was called an “un-American” proto-Nazi by the despicable Larry Auster for daring to criticize his beloved Lincoln.
Ha ha! I had a similar run in with the late Mr. Auster.
He closes with this:
The correct response for paleos in the face of such criticism is to stand our ground and respond to the liberals’ and neocons’ hysteric howls with cold, hard historical facts. Surrendering to the commissars of political correctness will only empower them in their drive for our destruction.
Amen! This is the point I have been pounding since the start of this mess.
Author’s note: I heard the criticism from Weaver below that we need to avoid the appearance of piling on Jack at this point. I had actually planned another post that I held off on for this reason. But I thought this Chronicles post was too good to pass up and does what we should be doing anyway, defending the positions of the old Jack. I plan one more clean up post on the Hunter affair with some links to some important articles but with only limited commentary on my part.
What killed the Soviet Union? Communism: The regime’s central ideology condemned its people to poverty and mediocrity. One day, they’d had enough.
What’s killing the DC Empire? Its other-worldly fixation on equality. Here’s the latest update on our own slow-motion suicide:
Senior military personnel are considering new giving women different military training than men, The Washington Times reports.
The effort was proposed by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Niki Tsongas at a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing because so far, she says training systems do not “maximize the success of women.”
Though the armed services have promised that combat standards will be the same regardless of gender, senior officers are considering initially separate training systems.
That second paragraph is a killer: Tsongas couldn’t come right out and say that women couldn’t compete with men as soldiers — instead, Political Correctness® dictated that the problem be expressed in terms of the training failing to “maximize the success of women.” Got that? After all, the whole point of military training is validating equality, rather than creating a fighting force that can defend the nation.
Every day the bucket goes down to the well. One day the bottom will drop out.
What: Rally against Southern demographic displacement (and Mayor Paul Bridges who sued with the SPLC to overturn GA’s immigration law)
When: 24 August 2013
Where: Uvalda, Georgia
Who: Dr Hill, Hunter Wallace and yours truly (editor’s note: Michael Cushman) have already confirmed. YOU need to be there too!
More info will be forthcoming but plan to be there! We will protest the anti-Southern mayor, talk to the media about Southern demographic displacement, use our memes and then have a little fun socializing. Join us!
Well, it looks like the PC Thought Police have another scalp. I was just about to make a post on another development in the Jack Hunter saga (that post will follow). In that post I was going to predict that while Hunter might make it through this episode, he wouldn’t be on Rand’s staff by 2016. At that point I didn’t know he had resigned. So I guess he didn’t even make it through this episode.
More proof that the PC Beast can not be appeased so there is no sense in trying. The PC Beast must be resisted.
Hunter continues to backtrack even in his resignation. Not only is he resigning from Rand’s satff, he is also resigning from his Southern Avenger persona. I suspect he is trying to maintain his viability as a pundit.
Hunter told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he wanted to avoid being a distraction for Paul and to clear his own name, which he argues is now unfairly associated with racism.
A senior Paul aide confirmed Hunter’s departure.
“I’ve long been a conservative, and years ago, a much more politically incorrect (and campy) one,” Hunter said in an email. “But there’s a significant difference between being politically incorrect and racist. I’ve also become far more libertarian over the years, a philosophy that encourages a more tolerant worldview, through the lens of which I now look back on some of my older comments with embarrassment.”
Letting people naturally congregate in communities they feel welcome and safe in is eeeevil. So the federal government HAS to do something about that. From CNS News:
The goal is to help communities understand “fair housing barriers” and “establish clear goals” for “improving integrated living patterns and overcoming historic patterns of segregation.”
“This proposed rule represents a 21st century approach to fair housing, a step forward to ensuring that every American is able to choose to live in a community they feel proud of – where they have a fair shot at reaching their full potential in life,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. “For the first time ever,” Donovan added, “HUD will provide data for every neighborhood in the country, detailing the access African American, Latino, Asian, and other communities have to local assets, including schools, jobs, transportation, and other important neighborhood resources that can play a role in helping people move into the middle class.” …
“Make no mistake, this is a big deal,” Donovan said. “With the HUD budget alone, we are talking about billions of dollars. And as you know, decades ago, these funds were used to support discrimination. Now, they will be used to expand opportunity and bring communities closer to the American Dream.”
Yes, this IS a big deal — “every neighborhood in the country” will be monitored for compliance. Too much freedom allows folks to live in ways our handlers don’t like. Eventually, all housing decisions will be made by a central housing czar. Then we’ll have better arrangements that are more “just,” as determined by the Comrade Kapruginas in HUD.
As I said in the post below, I never followed the intricacies of this case the way some did. When I would argue about the case on blogs, I was often amazed at how much detail some people knew. I guess if I knew that other people clearly knew more about the subject than I did then it would have been wise for me to keep my opinions to myself or at the least to hedge, but I was aware of the general scenario, and I had such confidence in my thoughts about that that it gave me confidence to speak on the matter as a whole. Perhaps that confidence was unwise, but it was there nonetheless, and in hindsight it looks entirely justified.
What I knew was the general scenario. The original local jurisdiction did not charge Zimmerman because they didn’t think they had a case. The State appointed a Special Prosecutor in response to the cries of the PC mob with the assistance of a complicit liberal media because they didn’t get the indictment they wanted from the local jurisdiction, and that Special Prosecutor brought an indictment (surprise, surprise!).
Here is why I think this case is a litmus test. It indicates where a person believes bias predominantly resides. If you asked me who I think is more competent to investigate a potential murder case, the state or the local jurisdiction, then I would say the state because they obviously have more experience, more tools at their disposal, etc. In fact, I could imagine a local jurisdiction that doesn’t deal with this kind of thing much doing a pretty incompetent job of it (unless the local jurisdiction is Sheriff Walt Longmire’s. Then the killer is as good as in jail. ). But this was never largely about competence. Some alleged the local jurisdiction did a slap shot job with the investigation, but the issue of the competence of the investigation was always in the context of the question of bias. What was primarily being debated here was the issue of bias. So here is the issue boiled down: do you believe the local jurisdiction is more likely to be biased because the victim was black and the perpetrator was non-black and that a PC outrage motivated state investigation is more likely to be less biased, or do you believe that the local investigation is less likely to be tainted by bias?
The latter seems so obvious to me that it is hard for me to even frame the question without indicating my own thoughts on the matter. The former accepts the obvious and known bias of the external calls for an indictment, and still thinks that is less bias than the unknown bias of the local jurisdiction. This is almost unfathomable to me. Imagine how much unknown bias you have to presume on the part of the local jurisdiction for that to be more than the known bias that is behind the state investigation. I am no apologist for the police, as anyone who knows where I’m coming from will know. I think police officers often have a power complex and abuse people’s rights. And cops are people so I don’t doubt that they often engage in the same kind of profiling that we all do on a daily basis. But what group A has to presume here is not just profiling or commonplace bias, but that an indictment was not brought because Martin was black and Zimmerman was non-black. In fact, I think it is much more likely that the local jurisdiction was actually more careful to avoid the appearance of bias because of the sensitiveness of the situation and the scrutiny, than it is that they refused to indict Zimmerman because of bias. My assumption when arguing with the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were likely either benign or excessively scrupulous. This strikes me as a no-brainer, and why I had such confidence in trusting the motives of the local investigators over the obviously politicized state investigators. The assumption of the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were malign and that the state case was necessary to set that right. This strikes me as borderline delusional.
In all the hoopla over the Jack Hunter smear campaign, Daniel McCarthy’s rather tepid (and telling) defense of Jack Hunter deserves to be commented on separately. His defense is conciliatory from the start and basically says that ”Jack has re-examined his thinking” so we shouldn’t hold his past views and persona against him. ”Jack Hunter has grown” we are told and is now attempting to “apply conservatism to uniting a country riven by ideological, economic, and yes racial divides.” But the conversation turns truly bizarre in the comments section. I complained in a comment that “the tone of this post is needlessly and unhelpfully conciliatory” and defended a past Hunter column on race that McCarthy said was naive. McCarthy’s reply to me is truly a jaw dropper.
It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.
What?! McCarthy just explicitly endorsed the Cultural Marxist double standard that sensible conservatives complain about. I responded and didn’t pull any punches, but I don’t think my response was out of line. Unfortunately, my comment did not make the cut. Since it has been a few days and comments have appeared below mine, I think it’s safe to say that my comment is not going to be approved. Here it is below. You tell me if it was out of line.
“It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.”
I’m so dumbfounded by this response that I hardly know how to respond. The essential element of the Cultural Marxist narrative that we anti-PC forces are trying to combat is precisely that, that ethnocentrism and ethnic identity and pride is OK for non-Whites but anathema for Whites. What is considered natural and good and healthy in non-Whites is the vilest of thoughtcrimes for Whites. This is an obviously obnoxious construct and should be called out and denounced whenever it appears. Either everyone gets to be ethnocentric (the natural order) or no one gets to be ethnocentric (ideological “color blindness”). And historical status has nothing to do with it. Let’s look at an analogous situation. Japan has long oppressed their Korean minority, but do only Koreans in Japan get to have ethnic pride, while the Japanese don’t? When is the last time you saw a PC Enforcer hand-wring about Japanese ethnic identity and pride? As the white nationalists are fond of saying, Cultural Marxist PC is not anti-racist. It is objectively anti-White.
In the Free Beacon article, one of Hunter’s alleged sins is writing for the “paleoconservative” websites The American Conservative and Taki Mag. That “stank” is still on you Daniel, and no amount of front page articles about gay civil rights is going to remove it. I really don’t know who you think you are going to impress with such nonsense. So Daniel, what are you going to do when the long knives of the PC Rightthink Enforcers come after you? I can read the article already. “McCarthy attended meetings of the racist John Randolph Club. McCarthy used to write for the racist … secessionist … neo-Confederate … Lincoln hating … anti-Government extremist … blah, blah, blah … website Lew Rockwell…” And if that happens, who do you think is going to come to your defense? It will be me and people like me who can be reliably counted on to counter attack the PC Beast. It won’t be Jon Huntsman or David Lampro. They’ll be fleeing for the tall grass just like all the rest of the “respectable conservatives.”
The PC Beast must be kicked in the teeth, not placated.
I never followed the intricacies of this case the way some did. What I knew was the general scenario. The original jurisdiction did not charge Zimmerman because they knew they didn’t have a case. The State appointed a Special Prosecutor in response to the baying PC mob and a complicit liberal media because they didn’t get the indictment they wanted from the local jurisdiction. This was blatant politicization of the legal process. I trust the judgement of the local jurisdiction much more than I do an obviously politicized investigation and PC whipped Special Prosecutor. There was a large litmus test element to where people came down on this case. That some trusted an obviously politicized investigation more than a local and presumably less inherently biased investigation says a lot about where their mind is at.
There are several bad guys in this whole sordid affair. Some of them are:
1) The baying PC mob. This includes the professional agitators such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well as the PC outrage chorus that infected the internet, strangely enough a group that was much in evidence at TAC.
2) The Special Prosecutor who should be sued for malicious prosecution.
3) Florida Governor Rick Scott who caved to #1 because he is a ball-less wuss. He should be named as a co-defendant in the malicious prosecution lawsuit against #2.
4) The liberal media which made this more of a racial and national case than it was by erroneously reporting that Zimmerman was white, featuring a deliberately out of date photo of Martin, altering the 911 call, etc. They should be named in a separate defamation lawsuit.
5) Obama who inflamed the situation with his “my son would look like Trayvon” remark and authorized a Federal investigation into civil rights violations. This was no more a civil rights case than is a local parking ticket, and authorizing its investigation as such was blatant grandstanding. Holder should be named in a malicious investigation lawsuit if such a thing exists.
Who am I missing?
The Jack Hunter fiasco fall-out continues. Now it has completely finished off Rand Paul as well. Someone please give Rand a Testosterone injection. He is clearly running low. For those who have argued that Rand Paul was just making rhetorical concessions as part of “playing the game” but was still stealthily one of us, I thought that argument lost credibility when
1) he babbled PC platitudes before a Howard University audience, or
2) spouted PC immigration boosterism before a Hispanic organization, or
3) offered Israel a security guarantee to placate the neocons (You see how well that worked out don’t you?)
“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul told Fineman. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.”
I actually don’t doubt that Rand Paul still stealtily holds views very similar to his father’s. That is the impression he gave when he stumped for his father in 2008, before he ran for Senate, but what good do those stealth views do for us? Does anyone think that Rand is going to stealthily get himself elected to the White House and then on day one declare “Ha! I fooled you!” and start vetoing all unconstitutional spending (almost all of it), or shutter the Fed, or grant the South a free pass to leave the Union? At best he is going to marginally tax less, marginally spend less, and marginally pull back on our foreign policy adventurism, because he has talked himself into a corner. So we pay slightly less in taxes and the country financially collapses in 2035 instead of 2030. Whoopee!
This is why I have such an aversion to rhetorical concessions. I don’t have a problem with stylistic concessions. I don’t have a problem massaging how you say certain things. I don’t have a problem with “playing the game” (competing in a GOP primary or being active in the party for example) to a degree. I don’t have a problem conceding the political reality as it actually is on the ground. In fact, I have always been very realistic about the sorry state of our present political reality.
It is partially because our reality is so sorry that rhetoric matters so much. Because at this point it’s all we got. Therefore we have to be willing to wage the rhetorical battle and make some headway there before the political battle will matter. When a national politician with Presidential aspirations can say to a HuffPo reporter “Darn right I think Lincoln was a tyrant and secession is a perfectly legal option! If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a propper conservative.” and the “right” doesn’t go into spastic denunciations, then we will have made some progress.
At this point, ours is primarily a rhetorical battle whether everyone wants to accept this fact or not.
Note: For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.
Notwithstanding all the brouhaha about this or that, the real lessons from the Jack Hunter saga are as follows:
Once upon a time, Jack Hunter held true right-wing views. Since that time, however, Hunter shed most of these views for some weird Americanized blend of libertarianism and Cultural Marxism, which probably demonstrates itself most through Hunter’s recent metamorphosis into supporting some libertard-fantasy-land vision of open-borders. Call it the “Rand Paul Open-Borders Suicide Pact.”
Nonetheless, although Hunter has grabbed his ankles, bent himself over, and said, “Fellas, do with me as you will — look, I now support open-borders and hold a view of race just as politically correct as any Cultural Marxist — please just let me make a financial living in Libertarianism Inc. / Ron Paul Inc.” — do the neocons care? No, they’ll destroy him just the same.
Lesson 1: It doesn’t matter if you back-peddle or even begin to peddle Cultural Marxist slogans, as Hunter has done, they’ll still destroy you. Stand your ground.
Perhaps even more strange is Daniel McCarthy’s recent defense of the ole Southern Avenger where McCarthy, in a comment, parrots the ole Cultural Marxist talking point that whites should have no right in celebrating their unique racial heritage (although non-whites should have such rights). And this is TAC’s “conservatism”? Good grief! Glad I cancelled my subscription.
Alexander Hart: “Then They Came For Jack Hunter. They Can Have Him.”
Michael Hill: “Et Tu, Southern Avenger?”
Richard Spencer on Jack Hunter:
Here is an article at VDARE on the Jack Hunter smear campaign. It’s good because it links to a lot of the sites that picked up the story, but the author, Alexander Hart, pretty much throws Hunter under the bus on account of Rand’s backtracking on the immigration issue.
Here is Hunter’s own statement. It’s pretty much a disaster. Hunter goes into full backpedal and placate mode. This is highly unfortunate. First, the PC Beast can not be placated. Just ask Jason Richwine. Just ask Paula Deen. The PC Beast must be resisted head on. Second, whenever you say some version of “I’m not a racist” you have already lost because you have conceded the other sides terms. Third, as I wrote yesterday, nothing in these revelations is really that damaging. Some of it is rather mundane. Just explain yourself forcefully without backpedalling or dodging.
That said, I do not think that now is the time to attack Jack for backpedalling. Here is what I posted on Facebook:
I am disappointed that Jack Hunter has chosen to backtrack and concede to the PC Rightthink Police rather than fight back, but that said, now is not the time for anti-PC forces to attack Jack. Now is the time for us to attack the PC Beast that is attacking him. We can attempt to drag Jack back to paleodom after we have countered the PC Cultural Marxists Gestapo.
Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & Israel & Lincoln & Media & NeoCons & Paleoconservatism & Political Correctness & Rand Paul & Ron Paul & Sovereignty and Secession & States Rights & The South
The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.
Here is the Washington Free Beacon
fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:
Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is email@example.com.
Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:
But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.
A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)
Salon piles on here.
What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.
Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.
I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.
Ender’s Game is Orson Scott Card’s best novel. A movie version is about to be released, but the enforcers of approved thought don’t like it — not for ANYTHING said or done in the movie or novel, but because Card is a firm supporter of traditional marriage:
Orson Scott Card has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights for several years. In 2009, he joined the board of directors at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which opposes same-sex marriage and was created to pass California’s Proposition 8. His own personal views on the LGBT community were expressed in a Mormon Times piece that same year: “Marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down.”
In that same op-ed piece, Card wrote that gay marriage “marks the end of democracy in America,” that homosexuality was a “tragic genetic mix-up” and that “allowing courts to redefine marriage was a slippery slope towards total homosexual political rule and the classifying of anyone who disagreed as ‘mentally ill.’”
The enforcers have therefore tried and convicted Orson Scott Card for his unforgivable thoughtcrime:
Geeks OUT has launched an online protest of the film due to author Orson Scott Card being an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. Called “Skip Ender’s Game,” the boycott urges potential audiences to steer clear of the film, which is based on Card’s popular 1985 novel.
“Do NOT see this movie! Do not buy a ticket at the theater, do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand,” Geeks OUT officials write. “Ignore all merchandise and toys. However much you may have admired his books, keep your money out of Orson Scott Card’s pockets.”
No thought that fails to meet the approval of these ruthless Inquisitors can be tolerated. That’s how thoroughly totalitarian modern America has become: Any person who states an idea that violates approved thought will be denied permission to make ANY OTHER statements, no matter how innocuous.
Welcome to the United Stasi of America.
Ugh! If you thought The American Conservative hit rock bottom when they published an article by Jon Huntsman arguing that gay “marriage” is a conservative cause, you would be wrong. Now they have published an article by David Lampo, a board member of the Log Cabin Republicans, arguing for gay “civil rights.”
Huntsman’s premise, gay “marriage” as a conservative cause, was absurd on its face, but at least Huntsman’s logic was tortured and circuitous essentially conceding the difficulty of his case. By comparison, Lampro’s screed is just straight forward gay rights advocacy. He even calls his opponents “homophobic.” What kind of a PC tool job do you have to be to use the word “homophobia” as if it is a serious term?
Whatever anyone thinks of gay civil rights, this article has no place at a supposedly conservative magazine, especially one that was founded by Pat Buchanan as a continuing voice of his campaign. It reads more like something some undergrad in a gay studies course would write to impress his professor. He even drops an “Institutional homophobia?” I kid you not. What’s next? A TAC article on white privileged?